As a man who never quite understood "Feminism", I get what you're saying. As a man who took to heart the wise words of an individualistic women, she was a tomboy who's femininity won out, advised that on the flip side of masculinity there is a feminine that must be acknowledged.
Thank you for reading Darrell! I agree with you, I think that all individuals have both feminine and masculine integrations on different levels, which makes no two humans alike, which is beautiful. Thank you for your wise words!!
Hi Rebecca, An interesting piece about an interesting topic! Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions to clarify your points in my mind?
First, you seem to be saying that if individualism were thoroughly accepted, feminism would be redundant. Is that your view? Is there no room for feminism in a society with an individualist legal framework?
Thank you for reading, Kurt! I think feminism would most likely still exist in an individualist-oriented society simply because people err in thinking all the time. These kinds of collectivist ideologies will always exist to some degree. I'm not so much interested in making a case for organically getting rid of modern feminism, but offering my take on how to respond to it in the proper way, hence, my title, "The Antidote to Feminism is not Anti-Feminism." That's from a cultural standpoint though. From a legal standpoint, feminism is most definitely redundant, given American citizens, under the eyes of the law, are equal. I've written a piece or two before about the dangers of feminism. This one approached the viewpoint of the other side, the anti-feminists, who publicly talk about taking women's rights away everyday. So, it's more-so, I know today's so-called "feminists" are frustrating, but we don't respond to one collective, illogical ideology by adopting its exact, reactionary opposite. We set the standard, and the example, by embracing and living out an individualist philosophy :) Collectivism will always exist to some degree. One doesn't fight collectivist thought by adopting a different kind of collectivist thought. I made the distinction in the article between the first wave of feminism and its future waves. To me, the first wave of feminism was virtuous. They were principled women with a goal in mind. And America's legal framework had already paved the way for the 19th amendment to be ratified. They worked alongside men for their cause, and did so lawfully (though Wilson did jail several to make an example out of them). I think the first wave was a cultural positive. But later waves focusing pitting men and women against each other, among other insane tactics, produced a negative outcome in society. So I think it's important to differentiate between original "feminism," which went by a totally different name anyway (suffrage), and the modern "feminism" of today. Thanks for the questions, Kurt! I hope I have clarified some things and haven't rambled for too long!
Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question! I'd like to discuss this further, if that's OK.
Feminism is such a complicated topic. You could almost say that it is an ideology in search of a definition. I read the Wikipedia article on it twice, and I am still bewildered. There are so many factions, and sometimes they contradict each other. Some are Marxist and some are pro-capitalist. Some hate men, while others are "sex positive." Et cetera.
I suspect that you would like the second wave feminists as much as you like the first, although not everything about it. It was the second wave that secured women's rights to reproductive rights, to defy the stereotype that a woman's place is in the home, to outlaw marital rape, etc. The second wave was as much about culture as it was about law.
Although the second wave gave way to a more problematic third and maybe even fourth wave, the concerns of the second never went away. They did come under attack as being too centered on white middle-class first-world women. But the abortion battle and #metoo are essentially second wave preoccupations.
I don't mean to lecture (mansplain!) you. There are questions coming, I promise! Given all I just said, could you to some tiny extent call yourself a feminist or at least not want there to be an across-the-board "antidote" to it? Does the concept deserve to be sorted out or should just be abandoned as incoherent?
I hope you don't mind me asking you questions about what you wrote. I think a dialogue between us could be quite fruitful!
I don't mind your questions and responses at all, Kurt! I welcome them and so appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I agree, I think our dialogue on this subject would definitely be fruitful! Your first point is a great one. Feminism is an ideology in search of a definition (you know how important proper definitions are to me- and I know they are important to you as well). This is the first red flag for me when it comes to the term, "feminism." Because it is an ideology, versus a philosophy, I don't believe it will ever have a logical definition. I was actually my high school's go-to feminist. I used to be proud of being called one. But after a significant amount of contemplation in college, I realized that not only were most of my sexist encounters actually with women, not men (though there have been some with men as well), but women actually perpetuated the very sexism they supposedly were against, leaving men confused and understandably not taking women seriously. I also noticed a significant double standard between men and women. Women were free to be misandrists, but men were condemned at the first possible sign of anything that could ridiculously be considered sexist. There's a great book called Female Chauvinist Pigs that goes into the concept that women perpetuate their own victimhood, while hiding under the free pass of supposed feminism. I think that if I had to choose a wave to align myself with, it would have been the first wave. But definitely not the second. The sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s did more harm to both women AND men than could have been imagined. This wave taught women that in order to defeat men, they need to become just like them- which is a horrible mentality to promote. And most of all, the ideology (aside from lacking a proper definition) is rooted in the power dynamics of collectivism, i.e. men vs. women. I think any collective ideology born from identity politics is counterproductive to humanity. It teaches people to judge based on biological factors that people have no choice over when they're born (race, gender, etc.), and teaches people that those factors are the only ones that matter, not the strength of the mind or any other criteria of actual merit. If you look at most of today's messaging from so-called feminists, it's anti-male, anti-individual, anti-capitalism, and anti-strength. I love surrounding myself with men (of high caliber), I'm pro-individual, I'm a capitalist at heart, and I celebrate my strength because it has been tested over and over again and it came out as the winner of each battle. All of these beliefs are antithetical to feminism. So, to me, I can't possibly call myself a feminist, though I do admit, there are days when my encounters with BOTH sexes cause me to wander towards that label. But my individualist philosophy helps me retreat back to reality and stay rooted in treating each individual as an independent universe to be discovered, no matter how crazy society is hell-bent on becoming ;) I do believe individualism is the proper, general antidote to ANY collectivist ideology, not just feminism :) I think the way to sort out any of these ideologies is by way of individualism, versus trying to inject logic into concepts that are completely illogical.
As a man who never quite understood "Feminism", I get what you're saying. As a man who took to heart the wise words of an individualistic women, she was a tomboy who's femininity won out, advised that on the flip side of masculinity there is a feminine that must be acknowledged.
Thank you for reading Darrell! I agree with you, I think that all individuals have both feminine and masculine integrations on different levels, which makes no two humans alike, which is beautiful. Thank you for your wise words!!
It was my pleasure to read a reasoned discourse. BTW, the words came from my wise mother.
Thank you so much for reading! Your mother definitely sounds like a smart lady! ♥️
Hi Rebecca, An interesting piece about an interesting topic! Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions to clarify your points in my mind?
First, you seem to be saying that if individualism were thoroughly accepted, feminism would be redundant. Is that your view? Is there no room for feminism in a society with an individualist legal framework?
Thank you for reading, Kurt! I think feminism would most likely still exist in an individualist-oriented society simply because people err in thinking all the time. These kinds of collectivist ideologies will always exist to some degree. I'm not so much interested in making a case for organically getting rid of modern feminism, but offering my take on how to respond to it in the proper way, hence, my title, "The Antidote to Feminism is not Anti-Feminism." That's from a cultural standpoint though. From a legal standpoint, feminism is most definitely redundant, given American citizens, under the eyes of the law, are equal. I've written a piece or two before about the dangers of feminism. This one approached the viewpoint of the other side, the anti-feminists, who publicly talk about taking women's rights away everyday. So, it's more-so, I know today's so-called "feminists" are frustrating, but we don't respond to one collective, illogical ideology by adopting its exact, reactionary opposite. We set the standard, and the example, by embracing and living out an individualist philosophy :) Collectivism will always exist to some degree. One doesn't fight collectivist thought by adopting a different kind of collectivist thought. I made the distinction in the article between the first wave of feminism and its future waves. To me, the first wave of feminism was virtuous. They were principled women with a goal in mind. And America's legal framework had already paved the way for the 19th amendment to be ratified. They worked alongside men for their cause, and did so lawfully (though Wilson did jail several to make an example out of them). I think the first wave was a cultural positive. But later waves focusing pitting men and women against each other, among other insane tactics, produced a negative outcome in society. So I think it's important to differentiate between original "feminism," which went by a totally different name anyway (suffrage), and the modern "feminism" of today. Thanks for the questions, Kurt! I hope I have clarified some things and haven't rambled for too long!
Thanks for your thoughtful answer to my question! I'd like to discuss this further, if that's OK.
Feminism is such a complicated topic. You could almost say that it is an ideology in search of a definition. I read the Wikipedia article on it twice, and I am still bewildered. There are so many factions, and sometimes they contradict each other. Some are Marxist and some are pro-capitalist. Some hate men, while others are "sex positive." Et cetera.
I suspect that you would like the second wave feminists as much as you like the first, although not everything about it. It was the second wave that secured women's rights to reproductive rights, to defy the stereotype that a woman's place is in the home, to outlaw marital rape, etc. The second wave was as much about culture as it was about law.
Although the second wave gave way to a more problematic third and maybe even fourth wave, the concerns of the second never went away. They did come under attack as being too centered on white middle-class first-world women. But the abortion battle and #metoo are essentially second wave preoccupations.
I don't mean to lecture (mansplain!) you. There are questions coming, I promise! Given all I just said, could you to some tiny extent call yourself a feminist or at least not want there to be an across-the-board "antidote" to it? Does the concept deserve to be sorted out or should just be abandoned as incoherent?
I hope you don't mind me asking you questions about what you wrote. I think a dialogue between us could be quite fruitful!
I don't mind your questions and responses at all, Kurt! I welcome them and so appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I agree, I think our dialogue on this subject would definitely be fruitful! Your first point is a great one. Feminism is an ideology in search of a definition (you know how important proper definitions are to me- and I know they are important to you as well). This is the first red flag for me when it comes to the term, "feminism." Because it is an ideology, versus a philosophy, I don't believe it will ever have a logical definition. I was actually my high school's go-to feminist. I used to be proud of being called one. But after a significant amount of contemplation in college, I realized that not only were most of my sexist encounters actually with women, not men (though there have been some with men as well), but women actually perpetuated the very sexism they supposedly were against, leaving men confused and understandably not taking women seriously. I also noticed a significant double standard between men and women. Women were free to be misandrists, but men were condemned at the first possible sign of anything that could ridiculously be considered sexist. There's a great book called Female Chauvinist Pigs that goes into the concept that women perpetuate their own victimhood, while hiding under the free pass of supposed feminism. I think that if I had to choose a wave to align myself with, it would have been the first wave. But definitely not the second. The sexual revolution of the '60s and '70s did more harm to both women AND men than could have been imagined. This wave taught women that in order to defeat men, they need to become just like them- which is a horrible mentality to promote. And most of all, the ideology (aside from lacking a proper definition) is rooted in the power dynamics of collectivism, i.e. men vs. women. I think any collective ideology born from identity politics is counterproductive to humanity. It teaches people to judge based on biological factors that people have no choice over when they're born (race, gender, etc.), and teaches people that those factors are the only ones that matter, not the strength of the mind or any other criteria of actual merit. If you look at most of today's messaging from so-called feminists, it's anti-male, anti-individual, anti-capitalism, and anti-strength. I love surrounding myself with men (of high caliber), I'm pro-individual, I'm a capitalist at heart, and I celebrate my strength because it has been tested over and over again and it came out as the winner of each battle. All of these beliefs are antithetical to feminism. So, to me, I can't possibly call myself a feminist, though I do admit, there are days when my encounters with BOTH sexes cause me to wander towards that label. But my individualist philosophy helps me retreat back to reality and stay rooted in treating each individual as an independent universe to be discovered, no matter how crazy society is hell-bent on becoming ;) I do believe individualism is the proper, general antidote to ANY collectivist ideology, not just feminism :) I think the way to sort out any of these ideologies is by way of individualism, versus trying to inject logic into concepts that are completely illogical.
Well written, interesting piece 👍
Thank you so much, George!